I became Orthodox for a variety of reasons: some personal encounters, appreciation of Orthodox liturgical life, love of Orthodox spirituality and because I could no longer reconcile myself to Vatican I teachings on the Papacy.

What I still don't understand is why your list of true elders is mutually exclusive; you have listed people who were never in communion with one another.

For both Elder Sophrony and St Silouan the Athonite, what I find most important is what St Silouan didn't write about: the calendar debate, ecumenism, "modernism" or the other favorite "whipping boys." The same could be said of St Maria of Paris. Or one of the most saintly living bishops, Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana. Just because elder so and so says something doesn't make it the traditional Orthodox position.

The bishops in communion with their synod and the other local Orthodox churches. That is соборность.

God bless !

I only wonder why you have converted, when you want to have a liberal and untraditional church, you must have known that the orthodox church is the most Traditional. So, now you have converted and want that Orthodoxy become also liberal and secular and modern.... ( in truth, in Church there is not old and new, or old fashioned or modern). Orthodox spirituality ....hmmm -that of anti-semits ? Liturgical life - that you want to reform ? So I think you only converted because of the Pope !

I posted some quotes from different Elders - yes that's true- and you see they say agree. I only want to tell you, that not all "old calendarians" think that the New calendarians are without grace. For me the old calendar is the correct one and it was not right to change it but I can't deny that also in the New calendar Church are great Elders and Saints.

I have told you - I have no list of true Elders, but perhaps you have a list of pseudo Elders with conspiracy theories and anti-semitism....

When one or two Elders have some special opinion it makes not the "opinion of the Church " but when through all the Church history ( beginning with the Old Testament) and most of all Fathers and Elders are saying the same - then it is the "opinion" and teaching of the church.

I have to tell you that the "Sobornost" must also be in accordance with the church of old. And my Bishops and my "Synod" wich is in communion with the MP and others, ordered that priests should have beards and long hair - rocor priests must even make a vow at their ordination ! And so is/was it in other churches.

You claim that others are unfair to you but that you are not unfair to others. I can tell you right now, here is a glaring example of you being unfair:

Quote from: Christodoulos

I only wonder why you have converted, when you want to have a liberal and untraditional church, you must have known that the orthodox church is the most Traditional. So, now you have converted and want that Orthodoxy become also liberal and secular and modern.... ( in truth in Church there is no old and new or old fashoined or modern). Orthodox spirituality ....hmmm Huh-that of anti-semits ?

You don't know Nektarios (I do, and have for almost five years now) and you have no idea what he thinks or where he has gone. He has merely pointed out something, that many elders never mentioned these issues and the point was we should not focus on externals over the deeper spiritual issues. He didn't say they weren't important to follow--I know for a fact that Nektarios values the tradition of the Orthodox Church!--you have insinuated this about him. And to say he wants Orthodoxy to be secular and modern is a total lie.

I don't understand what you are saying about "huh--that of anti-semits?" What in the world are you saying?

I only wonder why you have converted, when you want to have a liberal and untraditional church, you must have known that the orthodox church is the most Traditional. So, now you have converted and want that Orthodoxy become also liberal and secular and modern.... ( in truth in Church there is no old and new or old fashoined or modern). Orthodox spirituality ....hmmm -that of anti-semits ?

Would it trouble you too much to not impugn my motives for converting and making borderline ad hominem attacks on me?

All that I have done is demonstrate that there is a diversity of opinions of many matters of lesser importance within the Orthodox communion. Also that several modern saints have by the omission of these matters from their works shown that they are not nearly as important as you are making them out to be. For that matter, I know of married priests who are spiritual children of various Elders from Greece who have trimmed beards. That is why I came to the conclusion that it is most proper to follow the directives of one's bishop on the matter.

Quote

I posted some quotes from different Elders - yes that's true- and you see they say agree. I only want to tell you, that not all "old calendarians" think that the New calendarians are without grace. For me the old calendar is the correct one and it was not right to change it but I can't deny that also in the New calendar Church are great Elders and Saints.

You at least need to form a consistent and logical system. Regardless of whether who thought whom had grace, schism is a most serious matter in Orthodox ecclesiology - unless you are a branch theorist.

Quote

I have told you - I have no list of true Elders, but perhaps you have a list of pseudo Elders with conspiracy theories and anti-semitism....

The only reason I brought up some of the regrettable short comings that I observed when I was on Mt. Athos was to reinforce that not every word of any one monastic is Gospel truth. If one were to use the vast textual corpora of recent elders a wide range of positions could be justified. Far more important is to observe the current practice of the Church and the episcopal response to it.

Quote

I have to tell you that the "Sobornost" must also be in accordance with the church of old. And my Bishops and my "Synod" wich is in communion with the MP and others, ordered that priests should have beards and long hair - rocor priests must even make a vow at their ordination ! And so is/was it in other churches.

There are plenty of ROCOR clergy who trim their hair and beards.

And for that matter, long monastic style beards seem to be fairly uncommon among Romanian married clergy. Yet would do dare to question the Orthodoxy of such heroic confessors and martyrs who suffered under Ceasescu because of their beard length? If beards are the new litmus test for Orthodoxy, something has gone seriously wrong with our faith.

Would it trouble you too much to not impugn my motives for converting and making borderline ad hominem attacks on me?

All that I have done is demonstrate that there is a diversity of opinions of many matters of lesser importance within the Orthodox communion. Also that several modern saints have by the omission of these matters from their works shown that they are not nearly as important as you are making them out to be. For that matter, I know of married priests who are spiritual children of various Elders from Greece who have trimmed beards. That is why I came to the conclusion that it is most proper to follow the directives of one's bishop on the matter.

You at least need to form a consistent and logical system. Regardless of whether who thought whom had grace, schism is a most serious matter in Orthodox ecclesiology - unless you are a branch theorist.

The only reason I brought up some of the regrettable short comings that I observed when I was on Mt. Athos was to reinforce that not every word of any one monastic is Gospel truth. If one were to use the vast textual corpora of recent elders a wide range of positions could be justified. Far more important is to observe the current practice of the Church and the episcopal response to it.

There are plenty of ROCOR clergy who trim their hair and beards.

And for that matter, long monastic style beards seem to be fairly uncommon among Romanian married clergy. Yet would do dare to question the Orthodoxy of such heroic confessors and martyrs who suffered under Ceasescu because of their beard length? If beards are the new litmus test for Orthodoxy, something has gone seriously wrong with our faith.

God bless !

I know what you have done ! In my post I was speaking of Elders and Saints and Fathers and Synods and your respond was: THE SAME AS ........monks believing in conspiracy theories... and you later called them anti-semits.

You should name those Elders so that I know which Elders you are speaking of !

What you have observed on Mount Athos is meaningless - I was speaking of great Saints and Fathers...

I am not a branch theorist !

If you would read more careful you have noticed that I posted quotes beginning in the OT to the Elders of our times - and there are Canons and so on.........

I have told you that every Rocor priest has to make a vow not to cut his beard and his hair- so when priests do not have such "externals" they breake the vow.

If it is common now - I think not, but it was also in romania but I would not say that they aren't orthodox -again I never said that a priest without a beard is not orthodox.

I was speaking not only about beards - about all the other innovations or modernizations like pews, organs, shortening of Liturgy and so on .......

Actually yes you are. While the most common forms of the branch theory have Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Anglicanism as the branches, you have simply switched that around to be Orthodoxy and various old calendarist groups.

Quote

I was speaking not only about beards - about all the other innovations or modernizations like pews, organs, shortening of Liturgy and so on .......

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. But compared to Elders, I don't expect that the words of Christ will carry any weight.

Actually yes you are. While the most common forms of the branch theory have Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Anglicanism as the branches, you have simply switched that around to be Orthodoxy and various old calendarist groups.

The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. But compared to Elders, I don't expect that the words of Christ will carry any weight.

God bless !

You make it a bit too easy ! Perhaps a topic for a new thread.

I also could post you many quotes form the Scripture which say we should keep the Tradition-Paradosis (not even abolish one JOTA) we received - and it also speaks about beards, and hair Covers and about prayer and fasting.

I honestly don't know what you mean when you say that I make it a bit too easy. That doesn't really make sense in English.

Quote

I also could post you many quotes form the Scripture which say we should keep the Tradition-Paradosis (not even abolish one JOTA) we received - and it also speaks about beards, and hair Covers and about prayer and fasting.

I am not disputing the importance of tradition. I am disputing what is contained within holy tradition. I tend to think things like clerical dress, beards, lack of pews, church architecture, postures, language, calendars, etc are not part of holy tradition. That doesn't mean that I believe they should be recklessly abandoned for no reason. Instead it means that they were created for man, and not man for them. But as I suspected, the actual words of Christ would be of little importance to you.

You don't know Nektarios (I do, and have for almost five years now) and you have no idea what he thinks or where he has gone. He has merely pointed out something, that many elders never mentioned these issues and the point was we should not focus on externals over the deeper spiritual issues. He didn't say they weren't important to follow--I know for a fact that Nektarios values the tradition of the Orthodox Church!--you have insinuated this about him. And to say he wants Orthodoxy to be secular and modern is a total lie.

You know, Christodoulos, you might as well be preaching to men made of straw, for you have shown that you're not talking to us as we really are. You have created your own image of us and are arguing against what you imagine us to be, but that image is not us. You will see that maybe only one or two of our regular posters actually advocate the abandonment of Tradition in favor of modern secular theories--for what it's worth, the individual of whom I speak actually wears the label of modernist quite proudly --, and, if you pay close attention, you will also note that most of us get on his case a lot for his anti-traditional bent and will tell him quite often how much his views DON'T represent the Orthodoxy most of us here profess. For the most part, we in fact do agree with you that faithfulness to Tradition is vitally important to our lives as Orthodox Christians; we just don't agree with you as to what this faithfulness to Tradition looks like.

I honestly don't know what you mean when you say that I make it a bit too easy. That doesn't really make sense in English.

I am not disputing the importance of tradition. I am disputing what is contained within holy tradition. I tend to think things like clerical dress, beards, lack of pews, church architecture, postures, language, calendars, etc are not part of holy tradition. That doesn't mean that I believe they should be recklessly abandoned for no reason. Instead it means that they were created for man, and not man for them. But as I suspected, the actual words of Christ would be of little importance to you.

God bless !

To call me branch theorist is not correct, but like I have said, this would be a topic of a new thread.( for example you said I present Elders who are not in communion with each other- that's perhaps true). I did it to show that most orthodox churches agree on these points. St. Glicherie of Romania is also venerated in the rocor ( my Bishop participated in his glorigication) and you will find some articles of him in rocor journals.....but in other churches he is not accepted, but this mean not that I am a branch theorist, and when you say Catholic, anglican......they are seperated by different teaching and Dogmas ....the dogmas are the same in the NC and OC church, it is only how to handle ecumenism and innovation, modernization.....and many in the NC are ani.ecumenists and anti-modernists..

You are not disputing Tradition ok, and I tried to show that also "externals" like beards, hair cover, clergy dress ......are a part of Tradition- why we have Canons which deal witht such questions ?

Why so many Saints and Elders were speaking about ? And this Elders are not pseudo Elders, I was speaking of true Elders -and Saints and Fathers. You only have to read the early Church Fathers and you will see that many have written about such externals - because they are an expression of our internal.

The problem is not that the dress of the Priests change a bit ( there are different rassas or monastic dresses) the problem is that they want to put it aside and modernise or are careless. The priesthood is so great and holy and Priets are ministers of God's Mysteries and everyone should even see this in their external appearance.

But you and others ( I think Tamara, ......) are right to say only the external appearance makes not a priest good or orthodox. He should have both - internal and external.

AND PLEASE I NEVER SAID THAT A PRIEST WITHOUT BEARD IS NOT ORTHODOX, THIS WOULD BE FOOLISH- I often wrote that.

And Nektarios, I don't want to be a Grand Inquisitor or something else, everyone has to decide for himself- but to say that standing and hair covers are not a part of Tradition is not correct because they are and everyone can see this even in Scripture-

When you stand and pray...... they stood up and prayed....when they standing .......in the streets praying....

Why do you think, St. John of Damascuus wrote a chapter in his exact....about: Why we are praying, facing east, when it is not important.

Why there is a Canon not to kneel on Sundays and during Pentecost, when it is not important and when those thtings are only externals..... when you start praying sitting on pews it will have an effect also on your soul, and even on your faith ( with time)

And when you say, the Message of the Gospel- when you really believe in the Message Gospel - that Christ is God and that during Liturgy we eat his Allholy Body and drink His Allpure Flesh , when Cherubim and Seraphim are trembling and prostrating - you are sitting on pews ??

Is it not to deny that Christ is God or that the gifts are His FLESH ? Once I was asked by a moslem ( he was speaking about rcc); Why when you believe that God comes down in your Service, people are sitting on chairs ? I think he was right.

Both you and Archbishop Mark are branch theorists of sorts. While the left hand was flirting with EP and MP, the right hand was playing with Metropolitan Cyprian and his band of TOCs and some other Russians groups not in communion with anyone. An ecumenism among the anti-ecumenists, if you will. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

You have a hodge podge of various dubious elders, internet sources, wishful thinking, the complaints of some random Muslim about the RCC and that is where you derive what is holy tradition? And you think I'm the one that is anti-tradition.

Both you and Archbishop Mark are branch theorists of sorts. While the left hand was flirting with EP and MP, the right hand was playing with Metropolitan Cyprian and his band of TOCs and some other Russians groups not in communion with anyone. An ecumenism among the anti-ecumenists, if you will. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

You have a hodge podge of various dubious elders, internet sources, wishful thinking, the complaints of some random Muslim about the RCC and that is where you derive what is holy tradition? And you think I'm the one that is anti-tradition.

You can call me ( and Archbishop Mark and the whole Rocor) what you want ( even when it is not correct ). But it was not the topic of our discussion.

I have the impression that you try not to answer. You can call Elders antisemitic, or dubious,......and my internet sources also dubious and a Hodge podge......

When you think an Elder is dubious, tell me the Name, when you think an internet source is dubious tell me which one- but only to accuse them is not an argument.

In your post is not even one good argument, you can accuse me and all others to be antisemitic with conspiracy theories, do you think St.John Chrysostom is dubious,St. John of Damascus, or St. Nicodemus, or the Canons and Synods of the Church, tell me where the Fathers and Saints say that these are only externals........I think, you really try not to answer ?

Where is your Gospel Message ? Where are your arguments, accusing is not an argument ?

Yes, I think you are not really traditional. But that is only my opinion. And to ask, why you have converted, was not an attack, I only wondered that you converted,........

I won't speak for Νεκτάριος, but speaking for myself (and I know others with similar stories); when I converted to Orthodoxy I was about as conservative as you are now, in fact it is unfortunate that this conservativism is what attracted me to Orthodoxy. It way my experience after converting that made me a liberal, when I came to better understand theology and objectively study the history of the Church and especially the philosophy that laid the foundation for our thought. Today I remain Orthodox for a very different reasons, because of the Philosophical Tradition of Eastern Christianity and because not so much the teachings of the fathers as their intellectual legacy and academic methodology, not because of the trappings and formalities. In the Eastern Empire during the first several centuries of the Church, people took risks, they developed and expanded our philosophy and theology; the west was too conservative, they had less heresy but also contributed far less to the philosophy that serves as the basis for the faith.

It is unfortunate that many seek to abandon this great intellectual Tradition of our Church, at one time the most active and progressive in the world, and fall back on outdated modes of thinking, while ignoring our Tradition of philosophical development.

You can call me ( and Archbishop Mark and the whole Rocor) what you want ( even when it is not correct ). But it was not the topic of our discussion.

Actually it is very correct. Archbishop Mark's own activities are what make the claim correct; he was attempting to (and was relatively successful at) enter into communion with multiple groups not in communion with each other. That is the branch theory. You should wear it as a badge of honor. I would like to know what I have said that is incorrect? Was Archbishop Mark not courting Metr. Cyprian and his band of TOCs (you yourself said he was present at the glorification of one of their self-proclaimed saints) and did he not also play a pivotal role in the re-union with the MP?

Quote

Where is your Gospel Message ? Where are your arguments, accusing is not an argument ?

I already posted that I think the spiritual tradition, as most eloquently expressed by Fr. Sophrony in his biography of St Silouan the Athonite is the actual tradition of the Church. Documents like the Philokalia, the Ladder of Divine Ascent and the liturgical texts of the Church (which are themselves always evolving) express the Tradition of the Church - notice how none of them fixate on your favorite topics. I tend to find those a bit more credible than the selected quotes of some elder off of a geocities page. And of course there are true Elders, like Elder Porphyrios that lamented that some of his lay followers had tried to use quotes of his in the calendar debate and other petty arguments (see his biography Κοντα στο Γεροντα Πορφυριο).

Quote

Tell me your jurisdiction !

I have no idea how you learned English, but you use way too many exclamation points (this thing: !). To use an exclamation point with an imperative mood verb comes off as quite rude. My jurisdiction is rather irrelevant, and even whether I am Orthodox or not is entirely unrelated. Either my argument is correct or incorrect independent of my affiliations.

Actually it is very correct. Archbishop Mark's own activities are what make the claim correct; he was attempting to (and was relatively successful at) enter into communion with multiple groups not in communion with each other. That is the branch theory. You should wear it as a badge of honor. I would like to know what I have said that is incorrect? Was Archbishop Mark not courting Metr. Cyprian and his band of TOCs (you yourself said he was present at the glorification of one of their self-proclaimed saints) and did he not also play a pivotal role in the re-union with the MP?

I already posted that I think the spiritual tradition, as most eloquently expressed by Fr. Sophrony in his biography of St Silouan the Athonite is the actual tradition of the Church. Documents like the Philokalia, the Ladder of Divine Ascent and the liturgical texts of the Church (which are themselves always evolving) express the Tradition of the Church - notice how none of them fixate on your favorite topics. I tend to find those a bit more credible than the selected quotes of some elder off of a geocities page. And of course there are true Elders, like Elder Porphyrios that lamented that some of his lay followers had tried to use quotes of his in the calendar debate and other petty arguments (see his biography Κοντα στο Γεροντα Πορφυριο).

I have no idea how you learned English, but you use way too many exclamation points (this thing: !). To use an exclamation point with an imperative mood verb comes off as quite rude. My jurisdiction is rather irrelevant, and even whether I am Orthodox or not is entirely unrelated. Either my argument is correct or incorrect independent of my affiliations.

God bless !

The "branch Theorie is under anathema !

1983 Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia:

Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!

The Rocor was in communion with the TOC from 1994 - 2006, I think and the glorification of St. Glicherie took place in 1997.

So it's not "Branch Theorie", it would be more correct to call me a Cyprianit !

The Philokalie, Ladder, Liturgical texts are important, of course and I think I posted some quotes from "liturgical text, there can be developement but not change. I posted many quotes from true orthodox Saints and great Fathers ( did you notice ?) and not (only) from dubious pages.

I know Elder Porphyrios and St. Siluan and Father Sophrony but this is not an argument against other Elders and Saints. One Saint speaks more about this topic and one about that.

The Rocor was in communion with the TOC from 1994 - 2006, I think and the glorification of St. Glicherie took place in 1997.

So it's not "Branch Theorie", it would be more correct to call me a Cyprianit !

I'm not sure what has prompted the switch to spelling words in French now. But thank you for continuing to make my point. Regardless of the ROCOR officially condemning the branch theory, they were (and Archbishop Mark in particular) concelebrating with Serbia and Jerusalem and the TOCs at the same time (while the TOCs were officially in schism with churches in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem).

Quote

The Philokalie, Ladder, Liturgical texts are important, of course and I think I posted some quotes from "liturgical text, there can be developement but not change. I posted many quotes from true orthodox Saints and great Fathers ( did you notice ?) and not (only) from dubious pages.

And my point is that you have exaggerated the importance of superficial aspects of those texts that are not culturally relevant to every culture in which Orthodoxy finds itself. Lack of pews (although maybe you have never noticed, but almost every athonite kathalico is lined with chairs), the hijab, beards etc, are means to obtaining an end - namely the practice of the Christian life. And that end is our Holy Tradition. Different Christian cultures have reached this same end in different ways.

Quote

Don't be too much concerned about exclamation points !!!!!!!!!

I suppose I wrongly assumed that you did not wish to come across as rude and boorish. My apologies.

I won't speak for Νεκτάριος, but speaking for myself (and I know others with similar stories); when I converted to Orthodoxy I was about as conservative as you are now, in fact it is unfortunate that this conservativism is what attracted me to Orthodoxy. It way my experience after converting that made me a liberal, when I came to better understand theology and objectively study the history of the Church and especially the philosophy that laid the foundation for our thought. Today I remain Orthodox for a very different reasons, because of the Philosophical Tradition of Eastern Christianity and because not so much the teachings of the fathers as their intellectual legacy and academic methodology, not because of the trappings and formalities. In the Eastern Empire during the first several centuries of the Church, people took risks, they developed and expanded our philosophy and theology; the west was too conservative, they had less heresy but also contributed far less to the philosophy that serves as the basis for the faith.

It is unfortunate that many seek to abandon this great intellectual Tradition of our Church, at one time the most active and progressive in the world, and fall back on outdated modes of thinking, while ignoring our Tradition of philosophical development.

So you are saying that Eastern Orthodoxy has largely gone the same way as Islam?

So you are saying that Eastern Orthodoxy has largely gone the same way as Islam?

I'd largely agree with that analogy. Until about the 16th century, the Islamic world was in many ways the pinnacle of the civilized world. The collapse of the three major empires opened the door for reactionary clerics to take over and theological stagnation that lead to the 19th-century creation of the modern fundamentalist movements.

So you are saying that Eastern Orthodoxy has largely gone the same way as Islam?

Most world religions have gone (and are going) through phases of conservatism and vigor. Islam is no different. Nor is Christianity.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I'm not sure what has prompted the switch to spelling words in French now. But thank you for continuing to make my point. Regardless of the ROCOR officially condemning the branch theory, they were (and Archbishop Mark in particular) concelebrating with Serbia and Jerusalem and the TOCs at the same time (while the TOCs were officially in schism with churches in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem).

The ROCOR was condemning the "branch theory" wich says: That different Confessions, ( like orthodox, catholic, anglican, protestant.....)with different Dogmas (Heresies) and Traditions, are parts of the ONE Church. We believe that only the Orthodox is the ONE and ONLY true Church and not that it is only a part of it.

And I think, it is not correct to use the same term for that Heresy and the effort to unite the different orthodox Juristictions. When you call that "branch theory", many orthodox are branch theorists-like the Patriarchate of Jerusalem or the Patriarchate of Serbia,.....

Quote

And my point is that you have exaggerated the importance of superficial aspects of those texts that are not culturally relevant to every culture in which Orthodoxy finds itself. Lack of pews (although maybe you have never noticed, but almost every athonite kathalico is lined with chairs), the hijab, beards etc, are means to obtaining an end - namely the practice of the Christian life. And that end is our Holy Tradition. Different Christian cultures have reached this same end in different ways.

I think that Holy Tradition is not superficial and that it is relevant in all cultures and at all times. To stand during prayer, is a part of Holy Tradition and not a cultural thing. We know from the Old Testament, the Gospel, the Apostels and Fathers that all stood during prayer and orthodox christians from all cultures and times followed this practice for about 2000 years.

Pews were introduced in protestant churches ( in the 18cent ?) and later the rcc also introduced them and in the 50s some orthodox churches also began to accept them.

From an articel of the OCA:

Implied in the Orthodox liturgical tradition, and axiomatic as well in the modern Liturgical Movement, is the basic principle that what we do and what we say in corporate worship directly influences our beliefs, our attitudes and our daily behavior. That influence is indeed one of liturgical worship's intended effects. Liturgy teaches. Liturgy is designed to affect life. Bad liturgy therefore has bad effects. Heretical worship sows the seeds of error. Boring services of worship bore. But the Divine Liturgy served in the beauty of holiness manifests the light of truth and inspires holy living.

They lead us to the inescapable conclusion that pews and rows of chairs make a significant difference, a big difference, in our Orthodox Christian lives. That has absolutely nothing to do with jurisdictional differences or with shades of opinion in the Church, or with labels like "traditionalist" and "modernist." It has everything to do with the Orthodox understanding of the Body of Christ, and the nature of liturgical worship.

Whether we want to believe it or whether we don't, pews (or rows of chairs) influence the way we think about the Church.Pews mold the way we think about the Liturgy itself. Pews affect the way we think about ourselves as Orthodox Christian lay people. Pews directly influence our spirituality and our behavior. The use of pews is shaping the future of Orthodoxy in North America.

The pews in our churches are a much bigger problem than the use of foreign languages, for pews silently speak louder than words.Pews outshout the greatest of preachers and the most effective of teachers. Pews skillfully contradict the most excellent administrator and the most caring pastor. Pews drown out the words of our greatest scholars. A parish priest can brilliantly teach his flock about the place of the Laity as members in the priestly Body of Christ and co-celebrants in the Divine Liturgy, while the pews his people are sitting in, with the subtle dynamics of liturgical drama, insidiously whisper the very opposite. "Psst ... all you really need to do is pay your dues, call yourself Orthodox, watch the Liturgy, and leave the full-time practice of religion to the paid professionals." Neither unknown languages, nor choirs, nor even operatic compositions, could ever deprive the Laity of their active participation in the Divine Liturgy as members of the priestly Body of Christ. For they also serve who only attentively stand to pray. But when the Laity, as a mistaken gesture of kindness, were given pews so they could sit back, relax and watch the show, it was as if they had been deposed from their Sacred Ministry.In CHRIST

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Most world religions have gone (and are going) through phases of conservatism and vigor. Islam is no different. Nor is Christianity.

I think the difference is that Islam has maintained some degree of importance in Islamic societies despite its current state of theological stagnation (and the theological stagnation has effectively put a damper on their entire societies), while the stagnation of Christian communions has had little effect on other cultural and social events in Christendom.

I think the difference is that Islam has maintained some degree of importance in Islamic societies despite its current state of theological stagnation (and the theological stagnation has effectively put a damper on their entire societies), while the stagnation of Christian communions has had little effect on other cultural and social events in Christendom.

Well, Wahhabi dominance and infiltration (funded by petro-dollars) has no doubt contributed to such theological stagnation. Once the oil runs out, expect a flowering of Islamic theology.

I'm not so sure Christianity is currently in a state of stagnation, whether theological or communal: just look at Pentecostalism, not to mention Mormon missionary success. (Note: I'm including LDS within the general category of "Christianity" defined as "Communities centered on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, however variably conceived".)

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

I'm not so sure Christianity is currently in a state of stagnation, whether theological or communal: just look at Pentecostalism, not to mention Mormon missionary success. (Note: I'm including LDS within the general category of "Christianity" defined as "Communities centered on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, however variably conceived".)

I think the point is that Christianity is in a state of theological stagnation; substantial development and progress in matters of theology were seen throughout the 19th Century and into the 20th, but have slowed down substantially over the past 50 years.

And there is no objective set of criteria for who is a true Elder. You have posted a mutually exclusive set of elders, including those not in communion with one another. You have also excluded some very important ones such as Elder Aimilianos of Simonopetras or Fr. Sophrony Sakharov. Some of those from whom I have heard the crudest anti-semitism and the like I am nearly positive would be on your list of true elders, but I am not "naming names" on a Public forum.

God bless !

Do you even know what anti-semitism is ? Or Zionism ? Before accusing Monks and Elders of Mount Athos you should get more familiar with such terms.

I think there are different threads about Zionism and anti-semitism....do you also think St. John Chrysostom was an anti-semit or Blessed Jerome, or all the other Fathers....?

What I know is :

...It was during that time ( of the brutal Nazi occupation of Greece) a number of Greek Jewish women and their Children found refuge on the Holy Mountain. The Athonite Fathers hid them there for the entire duration of Nazi rule. In doing so they violated the Tradition that women and Children are not allowed to enter.

So what are you telling us- they risked their life and they even violated the Tradition to save the life's of these Jewish women and children.

In CHRIST

History of the Christian Church, Volume I: Apostolic Christianity. A.D. 1-100. “Even the heathen Titus is reported to have publicly declared that God, by a special providence, aided the Romans and drove the Jews from their impregnable strongholds.549 Josephus, who went through the war himself from beginning to end, at first as governor of Galilee and general of the Jewish army, then as a prisoner of Vespasian, finally as a companion of Titus and mediator between the Romans and Jews, recognized in this tragical event a divine judgment and admitted of his degenerate countrymen, to whom he was otherwise sincerely attached: "I will not hesitate to say what gives me pain: I believe that, had the Romans delayed their punishment of these villains, the city would have been swallowed up by the earth, or overwhelmed with a flood, or, like Sodom, consumed with fire from heaven. For the generation which was in it was far more ungodly than the men on whom these punishments had in former times fallen. By their madness the whole nation came to be ruined." The destruction of Jerusalem would be a worthy theme for the genius of a Christian Homer. It has been called "the most soul-stirring struggle of all ancient history."551 But there was no Jeremiah to sing the funeral dirge of the city of David and Solomon. The Apocalypse was already written, and had predicted that the heathen "shall tread the holy city under foot forty and two months."552 One of the master artists of modern times, Kaulbach, has made it the subject of one of his greatest paintings in the museum at Berlin. It represents the burning temple: in the foreground, the high-priest burying his sword in his breast; around him, the scenes of heart-rending suffering; above, the ancient prophets beholding the fulfillment of their oracles; beneath them, Titus with the Roman army as the unconscious executor of the Divine wrath.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc1.i.VI.38.html

St. John Chrysostom, a Church Father and Doctor of the Church has stated about any attempt to rebuild the temple: “"For what God, the Holy One, has planned who shall dissipate? His hand is stretched out; who will turn it back?" What God has reared up and wishes to remain, no man can tear down. In the same way, what he has destroyed and wishes to stay destroyed, no man can rebuild. What they failed to realize was that they were fighting against the decree of God, who had ordered that Jerusalem remain forever in ruins.” http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_05_homily5.htm

St. Gregory Nazianzen, Doctor of the Church (A.D. ca. 325-389) "Second Invective Against Julian" 3. He [Julian the Apostate] was daily growing more infuriated against us, as though raising up waves by other waves, he that went mad first against himself, that trampled upon things holy, and that did despite unto the Spirit of Grace: is it more proper to call him Jeroboam or Ahab, those most wicked of the Israelites; or Pharaoh the Egyptian, or Nebuchadnezzar the Assyrian; or combining all together shall we name him one and the same, since he shows himself to have united in himself the vices of them all----the apostasy of Jeroboam, the bloodthirstiness of Ahab, the hardness of heart of Pharaoh, the sacrilegious acts of Nebuchadnezzar, the impiety of all put together! For when he had exhausted every other resource, and despised every other form of tyranny in our regard as trifling and unworthy of him (since there never was a character so fertile in finding out and contriving mischief), at last he stirred up against us the nation of the Jews, making his accomplice in his machinations their well-known credulity, as well as that hatred for us which has smouldered in them from the very beginning; prophesying to them out of their own books and mysteries that now was the appointed time come for them to return into their own land, and to rebuild the Temple, and restore the reign of their hereditary institutions -- thus hiding his true purpose under the mark of benevolence. 4. And when he had formed this plan, and made them believe it (for whatever suits one's wishes is a ready engine for deceiving people), they began to debate about rebuilding the Temple, and in large number and with great zeal set about the work. For the partisans of the other side report that not only did their women strip off all their personal ornaments and contribute it towards the work and operations, but even carried away the rubbish in the laps of their gowns, sparing neither the so precious clothes nor yet the tenderness of their own limbs, for they believed they were doing a pious action, and regarded everything of less moment than the work in hand. But they being driven against one another, as though by a furious blast of wind, and sudden heaving of the earth, some rushed to one of the neighbouring sacred places to pray for mercy; others, as is wont to happen in such cases, made use of what came to hand to shelter themselves; others were carried away blindly by the panic, and struck against those who were running up to see what was the matter. There are some who say that neither did the sacred place admit them, but that when they approached the folding doors that stood wide open, on coming up to them they found them closed in their faces by an unseen and invisible power which works wonders of the sort for the confusion of the impious and the saving of the godly. But what all people nowadays report and believe is that when they were forcing their way and struggling about the entrance a flame issued forth from the sacred place and stopped them, and some it burnt up and consumed so that a fate befell them similar to the disaster of the people of Sodom, or to the miracle about Nadab and Abiud, who offered incense and perished so strangely: whilst others it maimed in the principal parts of the body, and so left them for a living monument of God's threatening and wrath against sinners. Such then was this event; and let no one disbelieve, unless he doubts likewise the other mighty works of God! But what is yet more strange and more conspicuous, there stood in the heavens a light circumscribing a Cross, and that which before on earth was contemned by the ungodly both in figure and in name is now exhibited in heaven, and is made by God a trophy of His victory over the impious, a trophy more lofty than any other! http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/gregory_nazianzen_3_oration5.htm

St. John Chrysostom: "Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them"." http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/chrysostom_adversus_judaeos_01_homily1.htm

zionism is worse than abortion (a war on infants), zionism is a war against Christ, His Angels and His Saints.

And Christ's admonition of the jews in saying to bring the zionists (those not wanting Christ to be King, but their own jewish anti-Christ kingdom), and slay them. And the Romans slayed the rebellious jews in 66-73 AD, slaying a million jews, about 1/3 of the entire world's jewish population at the decree of God.

The Muslims may be the holy hand of God's justice like the Romans were in 70 AD.